Beamscanner

I agree that something is not right with the Hornets RWR logic. It should mirror the logic of the Tomcats. There's no reason the target should move from the non-lethal to the critical ring (skipping the lethal ring) Theres also no reason a fighter radar that close would be put in the non-lethal band

DCS JHMCS has a blanking gap between the HUD and the front panel. IRL the gap does not exist in the F/A-18C. on the left picture below is an example of the DCS blanking, and on the right is what the real world one is. 1.16 prevents me from showing the blanking picture from the manual. The result is unwanted clutter when resting one's head in a natural position like seen in the image below.

I get that its different, but -73 Radar Attack page does not display the NCTR print. The SA page, Az/El page and JHMCS will though. From what I understand the Az/El page is used heavily in Air to Air scenarios. That page provides many lines of data on the selected target, including IFF and NCTR info. The Az/El page also provides an easy single button transition to the ATFLIR for visual ID and BDA. Finally, the Az/El page helps a flight of hornets separate where each of their radars is looking to ensure the airspace ahead is completely searched. They can only see their own radar's scan volume, but they can verbally tell their flight where to look. (ie via quadrant or altitude coverage) The F-15 doesn't have as many displays or provide nearly the same amount of info to the pilot. The Hornet has fully integrated sensors, allowing the pilot to use non-traditional displays for target ID/ROE purposes. There is still more data coming to the Radar Attack display, including RWR, Link-16 tracks, Angle-only tracks, IFF print (on top right), two soft locks with LAR symbols, etc. And thats just in RWS..

None of what you said was my issue. As I said, I was using IFF from a distance just fine. I did however find the problem. A bug is preventing IFF from working in STT. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3825412&postcount=11 This will certainly hamper WVR fights when being 'heads down' chasing a radar brick isnt practical in a dogfight.

Wags, will RWS be completed prior to TWS? (ie, MSI with RWR and D/L tracks, Spotlight mode, etc)

I was diving down on him inverted with him centered in my HUD. I pressed Sensor switch depress, which didn't do anything (it was working just minutes before with the SA page) But my radar cursor wasn't on top of the brick. I cant imagine you'd have to place the cursor over the target to IFF when in a turn fight. Anyway, I don't want to make the mistake again. So I'm just looking for more layers of protection. Its difficult when you find someone very close, not on PPLI, don't have time to place your cursor over the radar brick to manually interrogate, and both teams have all the same aircraft..

It was on.. ive been using it with the SA page and datalink just fine. In this instance I was WVR and the friendly appeared hostile in the hud. I’m not sure if I still need to place the cursor over the target to manually IFF while in STT. This is nearly impossible in a turn fight where the target constantly moves on the radar page. One would think IFF would be automatic in STT.

Not sure what I'm doing wrong, but I killed a teammate. HUD TD box was a diamond, with shoot que making easy to see it was a diamond. Friendly was in F-15, so he wasn't in PPLI. What has everyone been doing for ROE?

Operation Southern Shield has E-2s and E-3s in the air providing verbal comms. But they do not feed the Link-16 network. I'm only seeing PPLI and F/F tracks. (ie no SURVL tracks)

I dont have the TM converter yet, but I'd like to use 1 cam for all my VKB and TM sticks. I do not want to open up the gunfighter base and change cams every time I switch sticks. I've read that the W cam is meant for the heavy TM stick. Is the W necessary for the TM stick, or can the 30 be used? How do the VKB sticks feel with the W cam?

I'm interested in utilizing the extended mount with my Obutto Ozone. I have a base attachment made, but unfortunately the stick is just a little too far in front of me (even with the curved extension). Its distance makes it a little uncomfortable holding my arm out and the stick hits my second monitor when push 3/4 of the way forward. I'm wondering if anyone has tried increasing the curvature of their extension.

It seems weird to you guys because the sim isn't complete. IRL NCTR is mainly pulled from the Az/El page and JHMCS.. The L&S symbol (not in yet) also helps associate the same target between pages. Once the Radar Attack page is complete you'll see that there's little room left for more data.

The Western symbols for SA-2 and SA-3 are "02" and "03" (or just "2" and "3").. Not "FS" for Fan Song and "LB" for Low Blow. (8:07) you already have: SA-6 = "06" SA-8 = "08" SA-10 = "10" SA-11 = "11" SA-15 = "15"

Thanks! I very much enjoy hearing the RF spectrum around the aircraft

Awhile ago it was mentioned that the Jammer's receiver could provide PRF audio to the RIO. Is this being implemented? I ask because I'm working on some high fidelity/pseudo-realistic PRF audio that I'd like to replace on the Viggen and hopefully in the Tomcat.

In some RWR systems, the "Handoff" button enables PRF audio of the highest threat emitter (usually within the diamond symbol). HPRF emits hundreds of thousands of pulses per second. Converting that to a audio tone (via Amplitude demodulation) would result in a pitch much higher than the human ear can perceive. Thus it appears that the statement in question (not sure where you got it, or if its legit) indicates that any PRF too high for the human ear is replaced with a synthetic 3000 Hz pitch with a small chirp added on.

It may be the same guy I read about. But one pilot who flew both stated "The F/A-18 was like flying a Cadillac, while the F-16 was like flying a Porsche." This isnt a word for word quote, but he roughly stated: 'If I just wanted to go fly for the fun of it I'd fly the F-16. But I'd rather take the Hornet into a combat zone'

The Lot 20 Hornet has much more to offer in terms of avionics.. -Integrated RWR/ECM -3rd display -Unique display formats (Az/El and EW page) -APG-73 phase 2 is superior to the APG-68(v)5 ---APG-73 has a larger antenna (increased Gain), likely indicating greater detection range. ---APG-73 has a wider azimuth scan (140° vs 120°), and a wider TWS scan (80° vs 60°) ---APG-68 likely has greater side-lobes due to antenna shape and size. This would indicate worse look-down performance. ---APG-73 has SAR mapping (EXP 3 = SAR; the 68(v)5 does not have SAR mapping) ---APG-73 has better signal processing and greater computational throughput ---I believe the APG-68(v)5 only support HPRF waveforms in Velocity search, not in RWS or TWS. Reducing its max detection range in those modes. One of the references below indicates this. Note: The APG-68(v)9 replaced MPRF in RWS/TWS with a special HPRF waveform called "ERS". Since they say its replacing MPRF and provides all aspect detection, its likely a form of Range gated HPRF (RGHPRF). See George Stimson's "Introduction to Airborne Radar" to learn more about RGHPRF waveforms. ---Raytheon/Hughes > Northrop Grumman/Westinghouse (obvious fanboy-ism. But historically speaking, perhaps not as subjective as one might think) Overall the APG-68(v)9 is much closer to the APG-73 is than the APG-68(v)5 is. Though I still think the APG-73 would fair slightly better than the 68(v)9. Resources: https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=328 https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=3802&context=utk_gradthes https://web.archive.org/web/20110526024024/http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/apg68/assets/APG68.pdf

This is a major problem for me as well

I would like to see an option for antenna 'slider' vs. realistic antenna 'acceleration'. I think it has less to do with authenticity and more to do with flight sim equipment available.

IDK whats in game right now, but yes. IRL magnetic heading is used.

Much better! I think a bit of random noise, persistence from the screens phosphor, and sidelobe clutter at the bottom would enhance the simulation even more!

wiki mentions that the AGM-88C version got an additional bandwidth of 500-2000 MHz.. Which tells me the original couldn't see that low. This paper describes the transparency of the HARM radome between 8000-12000 MHz. Though that doesn't mean that's the total range of reception. http://1.16 It also mentions the seeker to be capable of multi-octave reception (extremely wide RF range). We also know the HARM is able to detect and home in on the SA-2 which operates in the E band (2000-3000 MHz) or G band (4000-6000 MHz) depending on the version of the SA-2. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/fan-song.htm Thus, as far as we know, the HARM originally operated between 2000-12000 MHz, and the C version was upgraded to see 500 - 12000 MHz. Its possible it could see higher than 12 GHz, but I haven't yet found the evidence. Never the less, a radar operating below 500 MHz shouldn't be seen or target-able by the AGM-88C. For instance, the HARM should not be capable against 'Spoon Rest', as it operates in the VHF band. https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/v-75.htm Military Bands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_band_(NATO)

yeah, i dont think the "S" emitter stick should be there.

Why would the pilot want "S" radars (EW / Search radars) cluttering up his HUD? And no, I've never seen HUD footage with "S" emitter strobes